Re: Should we drop non-SMP ia64 kernel images?
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 11:00 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Do you mean that kexec doesn't work in SMP situations ? I am not sure what you
> > mean about test situations and the SMP kernel should work just well in
> > virtualized environments, but i have some trouble equating ia64 machines with
> > low memory situations :)
> The new kernel started with kexec for debugging purposes may need to be
> simple and small. AFAIK the amount of memory for the second kernel is
> limited. Virtualization of SMP environments is pretty complex. In
> many situations its just nice to have a UP kernel around.
Khalid: I know you've been hacking on kexec a lot lately - can you
comment on the kexec case? Do you know if such a limitation exists, and
what it is?
Christoph: What other cases might you think of where booting an SMP
kernel with maxcpus=1 is not sufficient?
The only concern I had prior to starting this thread is the performance
overhead; I'm interested in any benchmarks that might be able to
demonstrate a difference here.